[berkay]

Is it really? Would it not be easier to find consensus (hence more productive) if we were to focus on whether the climate is changing (and not why)? Determine what the impact of the climate change will be and how we should address this problem?

[coldpie]

I have to admit I'm baffled by this line of thinking. Since coal-fired power plants are a primary driver of climate change, it makes sense to stop using them in order to help avoid further contribution to climate change. If they didn't contribute to climate change, then that incentive to stop using them would not be there. Understanding the causes of climate change directly impacts what policies we implement to mitigate it.

[CWuestefeld]

If they didn't contribute to climate change

I think here's where you're going wrong. There's a difference between "is caused by" and "contributes to".

It would be internally consistent to form an argument that supposes an alternate root cause, e.g., solar activity cycles and cycles of the Earth's magnetic field. One can state that these natural problems are (hypothetically) the root cause, while still acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus decreasing our CO2 emissions - even if we weren't doing anything naughty on our own - might serve to mitigate the damage expected to be caused by those long-term natural cycles.

[coldpie]

I... guess? That hypothesis conflicts with our best data and you end up at the same policy results anyway, so I'm not sure why one would prefer that roundabout method instead of simply agreeing with the scientific consensus.

[CWuestefeld]

Conversely, why demand that people pay obeisance to your ideas? If you can just get them on board to do what's right, what's the difference?

[graeme]

You switched topics. They were talking about contribution (albeit enough contribution to be the main cause), and you tried to make it as though they were saying causation (meaning no other causes).

[CWuestefeld]

They were talking about contribution

The common jargon in Liberalese is "anthropogenic climate change", i.e., climate change created by humans. My argument is that they'd have an easier time getting people on board if they went about this without assigning blame.

Saying "there's a problem we need to solve" is going to get a more productive reception than saying "you created this problem and now we need to solve it".

[Gravityloss]

maybe one should instead push something wacky, like that the great spaghetti monster caused global warming... [insert missing logic] ...and that's why we should shut down coal plants.

How would someone go about it, and would you trust them?

[berkay]

It's not that we should not do what you're suggesting but clearly we're not able to due to political differences. I'm suggesting that we may need to take a different approach to tackle the problem that considers political realities. Trying to reduce the carbon emissions is not the only way to address the climate change, many people argue that it may no longer be sufficient anyway. Suggestion is to focus on the fact that it's happening and try to find ways to reverse it, mitigate it's impact etc.

[graeme]

The impacts i clude the possibility of humans being literally unable to survive on some parts of the globe if wet bulb temperatures become high enough. And a constantly shifting coastline requiring recomstruction of the coastline every decade.

That's if we keep burning all the carbon. Yes, causes are important.

[gavinpc]

> consensus

So you're saying that we need consensus to do things now? My sides are splitting.

Can you name a thing that you think we have "consensus" about?

edit: and wait... "easier to find consensus"! I admit you lost me there. We just don't live in the same world. Do we have consensus for the policies we have now? So what is the justification for favoring them?